Primary Navigation

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: "The Dark Side of ECKankar" - And More!

Expand Messages

etznab@aol.com

I think a lot of people can overlook this stuff, thinking that whatever Paul Twitchell said/wrote must be the truth. Some people just might not care. Well,

Message 1 of 24
, Sep 17, 2011

0 Attachment

I think a lot of people can overlook this stuff, thinking that whatever
Paul Twitchell said/wrote must be the truth. Some people just might not
care. Well, it's reasonable to suspect this talent - for promotion,
even when it means making things up, stretching the truth, or just
plain spinning lies - was used to "create" the Eckankar mythos.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a
coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed
by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link
is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as
human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale.
Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the
result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud,
"Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

In other words, amid all the compilations and recycled material, etc.,
context has been changed (in various places) when it comes to source. I
wonder, could Paul Twitchell have created "Eckankar" and at the same
time given the source for all of his material? I noticed Kirpal Singh
and others were very good at citing references and sharing what
quote/saying came from who. So if Paul Twitchell ever chose to use
passages and paragraphs from books, Did he always feel obligated to
provide that information?

As a promoter, I suspect the person wants to give credit to whatever
they're promoting and not give more credit to "other products" instead.
It makes sense (to me) that Paul Twitchell would "paint the name
Eckankar" over so much material he had read (in so many words). Not
only this, but it even appears probable that Paul Twitchell took
liberty to respell and redefine words according to fit them in a new,
and growing, Eckankar philosophy. Not only words, but names too!

How extensive the promotion and PR campaign that created contemporary
Eckankar teaching? In so many ways, it seems this is the part that
doesn't agree with people. Not unless they knew from the beginning that
information was not necessarily accurate and in some places embellished.

Reading through early Eckankar books I think common sense might tell a
person that parts of the material was embellished. At the same time I
also think people could naturally so much want the material to be true
that they allow imagination to "make it so" and overrule common sense.

Ever observe what happens when you're part of a group where countless
individuals believe in things - through imagination - that aren't
necessarily true? I mean, when you're one of the unbelievers and part
of the minority who question whether so many imagined things are true?

What's interesting is that at age 27 (1935)
Twitchell was saying that he had been
to India (supposedly at age 15 to meet
Rebazar for the first time, DOBTLEM).
However, Klemp points out that Twitchell
was doing another self-promotion, and
was lying in order to get into Who's Who
in Kentucky. Klemp states that Twitchell
had never been all that far from home
at age 27. Klemp seems to have stepped
into a big pile of Twits mess. HK's
statement contradicts what Twitchell
revealed in Difficulties of Becoming the
Living ECK Master circa July, 1971. This
1971 date is, supposedly, long after Twitchell
(the Mahanta) was was no longer "exaggerating"
and "twisting facts." However, as Klemp
has pointed out Twitchell was still lying
and promoting his con up until his untimely
and death in September, 1971.

Prometheus

etznab@...> wrote:

>
> Almost didn't see this response because the e-mail bounced.
>
> Umm ... about the self-promotion, whatever, people can read about

> >
> > Hello Etznab and All,
> > It is interesting that Twitchell
> > has his Rebazar character (the
> > "Master" who initiated him)
> > indicate that there were 8 Planes
> > just as Radhasomi and Ruhani
> > Satsang have listed in "The Path
> > of the Masters." Since Kirpal
> > Singh, of Ruhani Satsang, was
> > Paul's real life Master for ten years
> > it's no wonder that this dogma was
> > influential in the design of Eckankar.
> >
> > Of course, Twitchell was constantly
> > tweaking, revising, and masking his
> > religious con as time went by.
> >
> > The Anami Lok (10th Plane where
> > "Sugmad" resides) didn't appear until
> > later. Did Rebazar simply forget to
> > mention this as well as the "Mahanta?"
> > Did RT think that Paul needed to be
> > spoon-fed and wasn't ready for this
> > advanced "spiritual" info? No, not really.
> > According to Twitchell he had been
> > given the 12th and "final initiation"
> > (to become LEM) back in 1951 by
> > Rebazar while on his "2nd" visit to
> > India. See, the timeline is off for this
> > ekplanation to be taken seriously as
> > well.
> >
> > Therefore, there is no rational excuse
> > for these inconsistencies except to
> > admit that the "rascal" Twitchell was,
> > once again, "exaggerating" and "twisting
> > facts" as even Klemp has described
> > and said of him. Klemp, years ago,
> > had to admit that Twitchell was a self-
> > promoter and did or said whatever
> > he needed to do ("By Any Means Necessary")
> > in order to get Eckankar off the ground.
> >
> > This is why Klemp, at first, had a
> > difficult job of explaining Twitchell's
> > inconsistencies and needed to keep
> > Eckists confused, busy, and off-balance.
> > Now, Eckists are so brainwashed that
> > Klemp can say whatever in his simple
> > minded redundant versions of feel-good
> > New Age spirituality.
> >
> >
> > Prometheus
> >
> >
> >
> > etznab wrote:
> >
> > One of Paul Twitchell's first reported journey's with Rebazar

Hello Etznab and All, It s true that most Eckists have turned a blind eye towards their religion. However, it s done via Klemp s subtle and not so subtle

Message 2 of 24
, Sep 17, 2011

0 Attachment

Hello Etznab and All,
It's true that most Eckists have
turned a blind eye towards their
religion. However, it's done via
Klemp's subtle and not so subtle
intimidation tactics such as:

Going to the "inner" to have
one's questions answered...
this is what the more "advanced"
and "enlightened" Eckists do.

Using the Buddha quote of, "Is
it true, is it necessary, is it kind"
this I ask myself before I speak
my mind.

HK writing articles and giving
talks on the negativity of gossip
and how it hinders one's "spiritual"
growth.

Also, there's the unspoken knowledge
that those who ask too many questions,
especially "wrong" questions, will get
Eckists Black Listed on initiations or
to have them slowed down 3-5 years
(on average) longer than normal.

Plus, Eckankar's Higher Initiates
(5-7) are a very passive group
and don't want to question the
foundation of their religion because
things are going okay so why rock
the boat? Being an H.I. is an ego
trip and a security blanket too.

And, let's face it, most Eckists don't
have the time or inclination to research
the old, P.T., Eckankar texts. They've
read it all before so why go back and
read it with new eyes and a changed
consciousness? However, it does make
one wonder why they've allowed them-
selves to be shackled to HK's dogma
when it's all based upon Twitchell's
"compilation."

In PT's Eckankar Dictionary, Shariyat
One and HK's First Lexicon, they
tell about the first "root race" called
the "POLARIANS." Klemp must agree
with Twitchell on this dogmatic information
since he put it into his own Eckankar
Lexicon.

But, do Eckists really believe in the
Old Testament Christian Myth about
the Garden of Eden? Actually, no,
they don't! I've even read where
they've made fun of this. How ironic!
Twitchell not only states that the
Garden of Eden existed but gives
his own (revised) names of those
present. In the ECK version Adam
becomes "Adom" and Eve becomes
"Ede" (like in Eden) This is, of course,
a clear picture of how Twitchell created
Eckankar. He took certain words,
names, and information changed
the text and letters around, or added
and omitted letters, and made the
info his own.

What's really funny is that in defense
of Twitchell Klemp has claimed that
Paul "compiled" only the highest teachings
from around the world in order to
create the highest "spiritual" teaching
anywhere and at anytime. Why then,
did Twitchell use the Garden of Eden
myth, and create Adom and Ede?
Is this supposed to be the actual
account while the Christian version
is less accurate. This is how Eckists
rationalize and explain everything
(the truth) away. ECK is a facsimile
and everything else is a copy. But
this shows that all religions are
distorted and inaccurate copies.

It really should be embarrassing,
for Eckists, since this information
is listed in their first Holy Book
under Polarian race (check the
index for the page number).

Plus, let's face it. This Garden
of Eden myth is a non-evolutionary
belief. It was devised during
a time of ignorance and pre-science
in order to give a religious explanation
for creation. And, it's been revised
even by early Christianity because
Lillith was supposed to have been
Adam's first mate who was created
equally with him.

Later, the creation myth story was
changed so that Eve was created
from Adam's rib in order to make
her subservient to him... as Eckists
are to subservient to Klemp. Thus,
no female LEMs and even Mahantas
are permitted due to some hokey
negative atom ekplanation.

But, Eckists are in denial of the truth
as they continue to pretend they
are advanced Souls. The mind is
very powerful and that's why Eckankar
appears to work for Eckists. The
mind will give one the dreams
and "signs" that are programmed
into it via suggestion and expectation.
However, isn't this the modus
operandi of all religions? If one
just Googles "miracles" one can
see examples of faith and belief
that would put any Eckist to shame.

Therefore, why do Eckists not
see the truth? Is it that they
have tied up their camels, to
a fraudent belief, and now, trust
in a make believe God/Mahanta...
Klemp? It is the Easy Way!

Prometheus

etznab@... wrote:
I think a lot of people can overlook this stuff, thinking that whatever
Paul Twitchell said/wrote must be the truth. Some people just might not
care. Well, it's reasonable to suspect this talent - for promotion,
even when it means making things up, stretching the truth, or just
plain spinning lies - was used to "create" the Eckankar mythos.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a
coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed
by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link
is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as
human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale.
Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the
result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud,
"Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

In other words, amid all the compilations and recycled material, etc.,
context has been changed (in various places) when it comes to source. I
wonder, could Paul Twitchell have created "Eckankar" and at the same
time given the source for all of his material? I noticed Kirpal Singh
and others were very good at citing references and sharing what
quote/saying came from who. So if Paul Twitchell ever chose to use
passages and paragraphs from books, Did he always feel obligated to
provide that information?

As a promoter, I suspect the person wants to give credit to whatever
they're promoting and not give more credit to "other products" instead.
It makes sense (to me) that Paul Twitchell would "paint the name
Eckankar" over so much material he had read (in so many words). Not
only this, but it even appears probable that Paul Twitchell took
liberty to respell and redefine words according to fit them in a new,
and growing, Eckankar philosophy. Not only words, but names too!

How extensive the promotion and PR campaign that created contemporary
Eckankar teaching? In so many ways, it seems this is the part that
doesn't agree with people. Not unless they knew from the beginning that
information was not necessarily accurate and in some places embellished.

Reading through early Eckankar books I think common sense might tell a
person that parts of the material was embellished. At the same time I
also think people could naturally so much want the material to be true
that they allow imagination to "make it so" and overrule common sense.

Ever observe what happens when you're part of a group where countless
individuals believe in things - through imagination - that aren't
necessarily true? I mean, when you're one of the unbelievers and part
of the minority who question whether so many imagined things are true?

What's interesting is that at age 27 (1935)
Twitchell was saying that he had been
to India (supposedly at age 15 to meet
Rebazar for the first time, DOBTLEM).
However, Klemp points out that Twitchell
was doing another self-promotion, and
was lying in order to get into Who's Who
in Kentucky. Klemp states that Twitchell
had never been all that far from home
at age 27. Klemp seems to have stepped
into a big pile of Twits mess. HK's
statement contradicts what Twitchell
revealed in Difficulties of Becoming the
Living ECK Master circa July, 1971. This
1971 date is, supposedly, long after Twitchell
(the Mahanta) was was no longer "exaggerating"
and "twisting facts." However, as Klemp
has pointed out Twitchell was still lying
and promoting his con up until his untimely
and death in September, 1971.

Prometheus

etznab@...> wrote:

>
> Almost didn't see this response because the e-mail bounced.
>
> Umm ... about the self-promotion, whatever, people can read about

> >
> > Hello Etznab and All,
> > It is interesting that Twitchell
> > has his Rebazar character (the
> > "Master" who initiated him)
> > indicate that there were 8 Planes
> > just as Radhasomi and Ruhani
> > Satsang have listed in "The Path
> > of the Masters." Since Kirpal
> > Singh, of Ruhani Satsang, was
> > Paul's real life Master for ten years
> > it's no wonder that this dogma was
> > influential in the design of Eckankar.
> >
> > Of course, Twitchell was constantly
> > tweaking, revising, and masking his
> > religious con as time went by.
> >
> > The Anami Lok (10th Plane where
> > "Sugmad" resides) didn't appear until
> > later. Did Rebazar simply forget to
> > mention this as well as the "Mahanta?"
> > Did RT think that Paul needed to be
> > spoon-fed and wasn't ready for this
> > advanced "spiritual" info? No, not really.
> > According to Twitchell he had been
> > given the 12th and "final initiation"
> > (to become LEM) back in 1951 by
> > Rebazar while on his "2nd" visit to
> > India. See, the timeline is off for this
> > ekplanation to be taken seriously as
> > well.
> >
> > Therefore, there is no rational excuse
> > for these inconsistencies except to
> > admit that the "rascal" Twitchell was,
> > once again, "exaggerating" and "twisting
> > facts" as even Klemp has described
> > and said of him. Klemp, years ago,
> > had to admit that Twitchell was a self-
> > promoter and did or said whatever
> > he needed to do ("By Any Means Necessary")
> > in order to get Eckankar off the ground.
> >
> > This is why Klemp, at first, had a
> > difficult job of explaining Twitchell's
> > inconsistencies and needed to keep
> > Eckists confused, busy, and off-balance.
> > Now, Eckists are so brainwashed that
> > Klemp can say whatever in his simple
> > minded redundant versions of feel-good
> > New Age spirituality.
> >
> >
> > Prometheus
> >
> >
> >
> > etznab wrote:
> >
> > One of Paul Twitchell's first reported journey's with Rebazar